Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our discussion forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
#807994 01/25/02 12:38 AM
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 104
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 104
Flowerseed: Oh I know, I know, I know - the stories I could tell, but totally unrelated to the subject of this forum. Luckily, I have not had to deal with anyone like this having to do with this.

#807995 01/24/02 01:49 PM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 503
O
Member
Offline
Member
O
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 503
unhappy wife,<p>&#8220;&#8230;if the MM wishes to have child but OW does not, you believe the OW should have child, give child to MM, and pay Cs. again, the OW has the choice&#8230;&#8221;<p>I&#8217;m putting thought into that statement, but I&#8217;m a bit confused. If the woman gets pregnant and doesn&#8217;t want to have the child, but the man does, and, as a result, the woman must carry the child to term so the father can be the custodial parent&#8230;.I don&#8217;t see where the woman made the choice. In this particular scenario it&#8217;s not about OW/MM. It&#8217;s about any woman and any man. My brother wanted the child his GF was pregnant with. She did not. She felt she was too young. She wanted to enjoy her life sans children for a little while longer. If, in my ideal world, my brother had the right to choose, his GF would have had to carry the baby to term and then give primary custody over to my brother so that she could forego the day to day responsibilities of a full time parent. She would have to pay CS. It wouldn&#8217;t be her choice, but it would be her legal obligation. If left to her and her alone, she would not have the child and she would avoid the financial obligation, but, then again, she should not have gotten herself into the situation to begin with. I don&#8217;t know if this cleared up my POV or muddled it even more.<p>As for having a child without the resources to care for him/her, I do agree that is wrong, regardless of how the child came to be. It&#8217;s grossly negligent. I am grateful that I am in the position to care for my son. If I had not been, then I would have looked at adoption much more closely. There is so much a child/baby needs. Loving and wanting your baby is all well and good, but if you cannot provide for him, then you&#8217;re setting him up for failure. There are too many mothers who pop out babies without any thought to HOW they will support them. They wanted their baby. They loved their baby. They did not have the finances to support their baby. I&#8217;ve seen homes with babies who do not even have the basics i.e. sufficient supply of diapers, formula, appropriate clothing, etc. These little ones will usually end up being removed from the home and placed into foster care. Mom will be given time to &#8220;get her act together&#8221;. If she does and proves it to the state, she will go through the process of getting her baby back. If she does not, maybe baby can be adopted out, but usually will stay in foster care. These children get so caught up in the system that they are known as the &#8220;throwaways&#8221;. It&#8217;s heartbreaking to see. With these cases, I don&#8217;t doubt the mom&#8217;s loved their child, BUT they did not take into account that their love was not enough to sustain that child. Through their blind insistence to keep their baby, they caused him more harm.

#807996 01/24/02 02:19 PM
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 440
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 440
Here is one injustice which I will never understand in the child support system. <p>Why is a woman rewarded more money if she has multiple fathers?? Why shouldn't a woman who could have been screwed over by her husband get the same rights as the OW??<p>See I don't understand how the system swears they protect the children, it is all for the children. But I see it is for the other children. See the OW in my situation had two "accident" drunken one night stands. She receives 40%. But the law states that if I were to get divorced I would only get 25% for my two children. The reason, because the first child costs more, each additional child costs less. Isn't that true for illegitmate children too? <p>So if things were fair they would adjust the total money to the OW to 25% total, and split the amount between the two men. But the system makes it very clear if you try to have a marriage and raise your children in a marriage, they will never be as important as the woman who just gets pregnant outside of a marriage. <p>On another note, how are there so many dead beat dads? I know for a fact they get my husband's money directly out of his check. He couldn't be a dead beat if he wanted to. Well only if we went underground and changed our identities. They never think of how it affected our family or asked about my children, they only cared about taking it out. So all those dead beat dads must not have jobs, cause if you have a job, the child support system can be worse than the IRS, no breathing room. <p>babstr.

#807997 01/24/02 02:33 PM
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,284
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,284
Hello Everyone,<p>Can a guy who has never been in this situation from either side get into this very interesting discussion??? Thanks!<p>First, I would like to take sides. I really like Jtigger's thinking.<p>Second, I also agree with ohbratti.<p>So having taken that very clear and staunch stance on the issue, [img]images/icons/grin.gif" border="0[/img] I would like to say that CDC had probable the closest approach that I, as a male with children, would agree with. You can never equalize the reproductive process. You can by law "balance/bias" it anyway you want.<p>You may not recall this but up until the middle of the 20th century the men got the children in a divorce. You may also not realize that women had the vote in many states BEFORE the amendment to the US Constitution took place. Since not ALL states permited women to vote, they couldn't vote on national elections. However, when women did get the vote, the voting patterns with respect to candidates didn't change. (My guess is the women were telling their H's how to vote before, hence no change in the patterns. [img]images/icons/wink.gif" border="0[/img] )<p>Why this rather strange history lession??? It seems to me that there is no way to make this issue "air tight" fair or balanced. Further, people adjust to whatever system is in place. Finally, things are not as clear as we would like them when discussing such issues. I don't care what side you are on. <p>What one can do is take more and important factors into the equation. Personally, as a male, I think that custody of children should be shared by parents except in very unusual situations. I suspect you know what those might be. CDcollins suggest that point.<p>This has nothing to do with the reproductive process, but has everything to do with rearing children. The justation (sp?) period is 9 months, the raising of a child takes AT LEAST 18 years. So balance that.<p>I think that CS support should take into consideration how many children are being supported. If a man has three children and then helps create an OC, then all 4 children should be considered into the equation.<p>Personally, I like Ohbratti's idea about the life of the child. If one of the parents wants the child to live then it ought to be alive barring health and life issues of the mother. This is apart from any discussion of the morals of abortion.<p>Finally, there is only one place where equality truely exists in the creation of a child and that is the initial process alone. Although, even now men are being sued for support that donate sperm to a sperm bank, boys (13) are being sued for paternity although they were statatorially raped (yup happened here where I live), and even stranger children are being produced from DEAD MEN's sperm. So maybe I am wrong even here. Maybe the initial creation isn't equal.<p>Well, I have said my piece. I apologize for interrupting. The sad and hard part for me reading this is that all sides have points. I would just like to see more focus on the years of the child and more balance brought there. I think that balance in child custody would probably slow down the divorce process in this country as well as make people think a bit harder before the whole process begins.<p>I suspect that it would make men think a lot more if he KNEW that he would have any child to care for at least half of the time, no matter what happened. I am surprised that it doesn't seem to make women think more as well. I guess I am just naive.<p>Thanks and God Bless,<p>JL

#807998 01/24/02 02:53 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 903
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 903
<<On another note, how are there so many dead beat dads? I know for a fact they get my husband's money directly out of his check. He couldn't be a dead beat if he wanted to. >><p>That's a good question Babstr and one I keep asking myself...it took the good old state of TX almost five years to garnish my ex-hubby for a mere $200 a month....<p>I don't have the money to take my ex- back to court and since I moved to another state, I have to pay to transfer records etc. and have LA take up jurisdiction....<p>The money that was alloted to go after my ex (who was a legitimate hubby and co-creator) had to go to pay for my H's atty. and the things with OW.<p>my dream is to try to settle out of court with my ex (who claims he has no money...I'm sure he hides it in his wife's name...I know....I know...we do it to protect ourselves and they do it to cheat us...I'm in a middle position here as I see BOTH sides...I know......ugh) anyway...my dream is to settle out of court where he pays a percentage of medical costs (owed me since 08/96) and half of my bi-polar cub's meds and $400 a month ($200 per child...we have two daughters together) to offset the $400 we shell out to OW for one child!!!! <p>I don't understand this system too...apparently I should have had Louisiana go after my ex instead of TX....ugh.......<p>Good question though...<p>Twiisty<p>Incidentally, my ex has a very good job and works for the Government as a Forest Ranger/Manager at a state park. He tells me he can't afford to pay more...guess I'll have to scrimp and save again to hire an atty to see if LA can get it from him after all...then at least my H and I will break even....<p>*sigh*

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 63 guests, and 50 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Convict20, GTNY, Avianna, BootsJeans, B24gordon
71,735 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics133,549
Posts2,322,799
Members71,736
Most Online3,185
Jan 27th, 2020
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2020, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.  |  Web Development by SunStar Media.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5